Judge Rules Jury Can Consider Manslaughter Charge In Zimmerman Trial

USFREEDOM911 said:
She should have let him finish his objection, instead of interrupping him.
From what I saw, is that him not being allowed to finish his objection is why he continued doing so; because if Zimmerman is convicted, and it's appealed, all the objections have to be concise to what the objection is, or else they aren't allowed.
Click to expand...

I thought she did, but if she did not, then you are correct, he should be allowed to finish all objections on the record
 
NOVA said:
http://tinyurl.com/mjxhuow

Kathi Belich, a journalist following the trial for a local news channel, tweeted her surprise at the line of questioning, writing “I have never seen that in more than 30 years of court reporting.”

Yet you've seen worse ?.....bs.
Click to expand...

You mean the journalist never saw lawyers objecting three times to a simple question about whether the defendant wants to testify? I agree, those objections seem weird to me also. The judge was perfectly polite to GZ the entire time. GZ's lawyers were out of order. They were hostile, not the judge.
 
Jarod said:
1) Its not a desperate move, it happens all the time.
Click to expand...

actually, there was quite a bit of amusement in court here over the attempt to argue that child abuse was a lesser included offense......

of course, the prosecution would have had to prove somewhere along the line that Zimmerman had knowledge Martin was under 18 before he shot him.....I wonder how they did that.....
 
He didn't know anything about him except that he was black and young.

that was enough for zimmy the guy had to be caught or killed to save the world.

Turns out Trayvon was a real human being and not the monster in Zimmys head.

Trayvon got EVERYTHING stolen from him that night.
 
Last edited:
leaningright said:
Maybe she sees the prosecution's 2nd degree murder case slipping away and wants to give the jury the option of convicting him of something. I really haven't been following the case other than reading the posts on this site so my knowledge is extremely limited and definitely partisan from on post to the next. :)
Click to expand...
That's nothing new LR. It's been common practice to permit Juries to consider lesser charges since the beginning of our Republic. The defense attourney is blowing smoke.
 
Rana said:
Every time you open your mouth you leave no doubt of your stupidity.
Click to expand...
Which is why I don't waste energy responding to him. At least I try not too.

There are some posters filled with some internal rage that their responses are always the same towards people who don't hold their radicalized views. "I hate you and I hate what you believe in."

When have you ever heard rational comments from wingnuts like Nova, Racist X, ILA, PiMP, Boris, et.al. ? Their comments really just boil down to an irrational "I hate you and I hate what you believe in.".

It makes you wonder, where does their hatred come from? Is it deep rooted self loathing? Is it frustration about their own lives? My guess is that it's a combination of both but probably more of the later.
 
cawacko said:
Reagan was left-leaning? I'd be surprised if many of today's Democrats or liberals agreed with that statement.
Click to expand...
I agree wtih you about Reagan not being left leaning but her point is a valid one. Reagan by todays standards and with the stranglehold reactionary conservatives have on the Republican party I doubt he could get nominated either. Reagan made shit loads of compromises to get things done that would beyond the pale and unacceptable to many in the Republican power structure today.
 
he was a rino in todays creepy assed cracker party.


as usual they just rewrite history to fit their lie filled world
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top